Chapter XXIX
“The Scoto-Milesians,” says Dr. Hales,489 “reckon twenty-three generations from Feni an fear soid, ‘the Phœnician wise man,’ their ancestor, to Heber and Heremon, who established the last settlement from Spain, as observed before; which, at the usual computation of three mean generations to a century, would give 766 years from Fenius to Heber. But we learn from Coemhain, that the sons of Milesius (this should have been Gallamh)490 were coeval with Solomon, and that the Gadelians491 came to Ireland in the middle of the reign of this illustrious prince,” B.C. 1002, according to the Irish chronology. Counting backwards, therefore, from this date, 766 years, we get the time of Fenius about B.C. 1768. And this agrees with sacred and profane history; for Joshua, whose administration began B.C. 1688, according to Hales’s Chronology, notices “the strong city of Tyre” (Josh. xix. 29); which maintained its independence even in David’s days (2 Sam. xxiv. 7); and in Solomon’s (1 Kings ix. 11-14). And Herodotus, that inquisitive traveller and intelligent historian, who visited Tyre about B.C. 448, saw there the temple of the Thasian Hercules; and another erected to him by the Phœnicians at Thasus itself, an island on the coast of Thrace, while they were engaged in search of Europa, the daughter of Agenor, King of Tyre, who had been carried off by some Greeks; an event, says Herodotus, which happened five generations before the Grecian Hercules, the son of Amphitryon, B. ii. sec. 44; who flourished about 900 years before he wrote, sec. 145, or about B.C. 1348, to which adding 166 years for the five generations, we get the rape of Europa about B.C. 1514.
“But the deification of the Thasian Hercules must have been after his death, which may make him contemporary with Joshua, or even earlier. Herodotus relates that the Tyrians themselves boasted of the remote antiquity of their city, founded, as they said, 2300 years before (B. xi. 44), which would carry it higher than the deluge. The high antiquity, however, of Sidon and her daughter Tyre, was acknowledged by Xerxes, king of Persia, when he invaded Greece, B.C. 480; and in a council of his officers allowed her ambassadors the honour of precedence” (sec. 11).
He adds: “In order to determine the cardinal data of ancient Irish history, it is necessary to premise a synopsis of Coemhain’s System of Chronology.
| Y. | B.C. | |||
| Creation | 1656 | 3952 | ||
| Deluge | 292 | 2296 | ||
| Abraham born | 942 | 2004 | ||
| David, king | 473 | 1062 | ||
| Babylonish Captivity | 589 | 589 | ||
| Christian Era | 3952 | 1 |
“In this table, the first column contains the years elapsed between the succeeding events: thus, from the creation, 1656 years to the deluge; from the deluge, 292 years to the birth of Abraham, etc.; and their amount, 3952 years, gives the basis of the system, or the years elapsed from the creation to the vulgar Christian era. The second column gives the dates of these events before the Christian era.
“David began to reign B.C. 1062; from which subducting 60 years for the amount of his whole reign, 40 years, and 20 years, the half of Solomon’s, we get B.C. 1002, for the date of the expedition of Heber and Heremon to Ireland.
“This same number has been noticed by two earlier chronologers, Marcus Anchoreta, A.D. 647; and Nennius, A.D. 858; who both date the arrival of the Scoti in Ireland, ‘1002 years after the passage of the Red Sea by the Israelites, in which the Egyptians were drowned’ (O’Connor, Proleg. ii. pp. 15-45). The identity of the number 1002 proves the mistake in the reference to the exode of the Israelites, instead of to the Christian era, which depresses the arrival of the Scoti five centuries too low. For Coemhain reckons the exode 502 years after the birth of Abraham, or B.C. 1502; from which subtracting 1002 years, the arrival of the Scoti would be reduced to B.C. 500; or, following Usher’s date of the deluge, B.C. 1491. O’Connor reduces it still lower, to B.C. 489 (Proleg. ii. p. 45). Upon the superior authority of Coemhain, therefore, as a chronologer, we are warranted to rectify this important error of Nennius and Marcus Anchoreta, which even Dr. O’Connor has failed to correct; not adverting to the foregoing inference from Coemhain. But he has happily furnished himself the materials for proving the error.
“He states, that one hundred and eighteen kings of the Scoti reigned, till the arrival of St. Patrick, B.C. 489 + A.D. 435 = 921 years in all, which, divided by 118, would give too short an average of reigns, only 79⁄11 years a-piece; whereas the true interval, B.C. 1002 + A.D. 432 = 1434 years, would give the average of reigns above twelve years a-piece; which he justly represents as the standard, from Patrick to Malachy II., viz. forty-eight reigns in 590 years (Proleg. ii. p. 45).”492
The date of the Scythian invasion, then, being fixed as B.C. 1002, it is agreed on all hands that that of the Tuath-de-danaans was but two hundred years anterior, or B.C. 1202;493 with this exactly corresponds the time at which Marsden, Kæmpfer, and Loubere date the arrival of the Buddists at Siam, viz. B.C. 1202. Among the Japanese also, they are stated by Klaproth to have arrived not very distant from that era, or B.C. 1029. Dé Guignes and Remusat suppose 1029 as the epoch at which they invaded China. B.C. 1000 is the epoch assigned by Symes for their descent upon the Burman empire; and B.C. 1029 is that fixed by Ozeray for their entrance into Ceylon; while the Mogul authors and the Bagwad Amrita (Sir W. Jones) recognise their appearance respectively at B.C. 2044 and B.C. 2099.
Now, the extreme concordance amongst the calculations of those various countries, one with the other, and their almost universal coincidence, nay, in the Siamese authorities, almost miraculous identifications, with our Irish registries, as to the influx, amongst all, of this singular people, and their extraordinary ritual, makes us associate the phenomena with one common cause, and that was the expulsion of the Budhists from India, the Rajas having proclaimed, at the instigation of the rival Brahmins, that “from the bridge of Rama, even to the snow-capped Himala, no man should spare the Budhists, young or old, on pain of death” (Guigniaud’s Creuzer).
As to the Mogul dates, and those of the Bagwad Amrita, they evidently bear reference to former colonies; nor are we, in Ireland, without similar chronicles of an antecedent arrival, and precisely answering to the time of the first departure of the Tuath-de-danaans from the borders of Persia.494
It was, indeed, the tradition of this early invasion, long mystified by age, that we have seen so perverted at p. 385, for the sole purpose of effecting a miracle! Nor is this the only fable that fastens upon that narrative: we have that of Partholan and of Nemedius, and a thousand other reminiscences, all directing towards the centre of a common nucleus. The East is the point whither they all aim, and the era they assign is invariably that of the deluge! Is it not, therefore, inevitable, but that the object recorded is our reception of the Tuath-de-danaans when ejected by the arms of their Pish-de-danaan rivals?495
Amongst the Easterns themselves we find corresponding traditions, wrapt up, as usual, in allegory, of this primordial departure. The Phrygians, who were one of the most ancient and considerable nations of Asia Minor, complain of Apollo having wandered from them, in company with Cybele, to the land of the Hyperboreans.496 The costume of the archers upon our Knockmoy frescoes is strictly Phrygian, and confirms their testimony better than any written memorial! “Hercules,” says Cedrenus, “first taught philosophy in the western parts of the world.” This was our Ogham, which the Gauls had borrowed from us, as you will see by note, p. 420. “In Egypt,” says Ausonius, “they called him Osiris, but in the island of Ogygia they gave him the name of Bacchus.” If we will remember the form under which Osiris was worshipped, viz. that of our Round Towers,497 and then recollect that the name of Bacchus is still found amongst our ancient inscriptions;498 and in addition to all these, bear in mind that Plutarch499 expressly designates the island, from its extreme antiquity, as Ogygia, all qualms as to the situation alluded to by Ausonius must for ever evaporate?
Let us now glance at the institutions of this island, the personal appearance of its inhabitants, and their popular customs, as compared with ancient Persia.
To begin with the aspect, which often proves decisive in more interesting applications, I refer you to our real figures at p. 330, as a fair outline of Irish contour; with this, if you will compare what Captain Head affirms, in reference to the settlers at Bombay, viz. that “the ancient inhabitants of Persia were superior, not inferior, in looks, to the present, who belong to a hundred mixed races, which have poured upon that kingdom since the overthrow of Yezdijerd,” no disparity will present itself, at least in that quarter.
As to institutions, I will instance that of our ancient clans,500 and place by them in juxtaposition what Sir John Malcolm delivers on the subject of Persia. “Jemsheed” (a prince of the Pish-de-danaan dynasty, founder of Persepolis, called after him, Tucht-e-jemsheed, which, in Irish, signifies the Couch-of-Jemsheed) “divided,” says he, “according to Persian authors, his subjects into four classes. The first was formed of learned and pious men, devoted to the worship of God; and the duty ascribed to them was to make known to others what was lawful and what otherwise. The second were writers, whose employment was to keep the records and accounts of the state. The third soldiers, who were directed to occupy themselves in military exercises, that they might be fitted for war. The fourth class were artificers, husbandmen, and tradesmen. The authorities on which we give the history of Jemsheed make no mention of Mah-abad; but, if we are to give credit to the Dabistan, the institution of Jemsheed can only be deemed a revival of that lawgiver.”501
In respect to religion, Herodotus states that, “from his own knowledge, the Persians had neither statues, temples, nor altars, but offered on the tops of the highest mountains sacrifices to Jove, by which they meant the deity of the air; that they adored the sun, moon, earth, fire, water, and the winds, but that they sacrificed to these only from of old, according to ancient custom, and that they gave the preference to Trefoil, whereon they laid their offerings.”502
Now, two considerations are to be observed, as involved in this last quotation: one is, that the historian attributes the usages of this nation to two distinct periods of time. From ocular inspection, he avows that they had no temples, etc., because such were long exploded. And he knew not what to make of the Round Towers. Part, however, of the ceremonial appertaining to those edifices still remained, such as the worship of the sun, moon, earth, fire, water, and the winds; and “to these,” he frankly acknowledges, “they sacrificed only from of old,” or in deference to the practice of their predecessors—I will not say forefathers.
Contemplate now the reverence shown to the herb Trefoil, our national shamrock, and will you not see another link of that great concatenation uniting the two Irans, and triumphing at once over supposition and over scepticism? I have already deplumed St. Patrick of the serpent expulsion; or, rather, I have done honour to his memory, by saving it from the fabrications of pious impostors. I now continue my course of justice, by showing that he had as little to do with the veneration paid to this plant. It was worshipped in the Emerald Island, and imported, you perceive, by the Tuath-de-danaans, centuries upon centuries before the apostle was born: and the cause of this devotion was, not alone that it symbolised the Trinity, which was an article of Budhist doctrine, even before the incarnation of Christ, but because that it blended with it, in mystery as well as in gratitude, the Alibenistic cross, the seal of their redemption, and their passport to eternity! Here then are the shamrocks, or Free-masonic devices, upon the crowns of our Irish kings explained; and those upon the Persian crowns, by and by to be inserted, are similarly expounded!503
Lastly, the funerals of the Persians—after the soul’s liberation from its tenement of clay, at the summons of its God—are described by Herodotus504 with so striking a similtude, that you would imagine he had witnessed, and expressly referred to, the like scenes in Ireland.505
Oh! “if the human mind can ever flatter itself with having been successful in discovering the truth, it is when many facts, and these facts of different kinds unite in producing the same result.”506
In truth, the island was altogether an Oriental Asylum,507 until, for a moment broken in upon by the Fir-Bolgs, or Celts. Their usurpation, however, was only that of a day, amounting, by all records, but to fifty-six years;508 after which, a new army of the Tuath-de-danaans, driven now, not from Persia, but from India, by the Brahmins, laid claim to the sceptre to which their brethren had invited them, and reinstated themselves afresh in our kindred Iran.
It is not, therefore, you perceive, our individual history alone that is rectified by this investigation. It supplies a vacuum in the history of the world: which could not be said to have been correct, so long as there was nothing known on the various topics now explained.509
Professor Müller,510 in a very elaborate treatise upon the Antiquities of the Dorians, has been pleased to affect astonishment, through one of his notes, that Hecatæus should have believed in the existence of the Hyperboreans! It became him, unquestionably, so to do, because that the proofs of their existence were beyond his own reach. But though their reality, as well as locality, have been already put beyond disputation, I will, to justify the exclusiveness here proclaimed, enter again upon the subject, and, without following in detail, show, by the reverse of his positions, that his whole system of mythology is equally erroneous.
In this determination I will of course be acquitted of any intentional slight. Who could read Professor Müller’s work, and not be struck with the labour and the ingenuity which distinguish its every page? I yield to no man in my respect for his abilities, but I weep, from my soul, that his classic care was not bequeathed upon some other subject, rather than be split upon a rock by an ignis fatuus. I never saw such a waste of letters as his book exhibits! I never saw such learned research so miserably thrown away! And how could it be otherwise, his great object having been to make everything square to the reveries of the Grecians!—taking them as his clue, into a labyrinth of inextricability, through one inch of which neither conductor nor traveller could see their way!
Sweet pahlavi of the Hyperboreans, I will take you as my guide!
“———Nor be my thoughts
Presumptuous counted, if amid the calm
That soothes the vernal evening into smiles,
I steal impatient, from the sordid haunts
Of strife and low ambition, to attend
Thy sacred presence, in the sylvan shade,
By their malignant footstep ne’er profaned.”
—Thomson.